Jayrok

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa53intro.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isaiah53a.html (six part essay on Isaiah 53)

These articles are from a Jewish perspective on Isaiah 53. FWIW.

andrewcriddle

Jewish teaching on the point is not unanimous.
Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin (Discussing the name of the Messiah) Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

Apologists love to trot out that lone bit of (post Christian) Talmudic speculation. but it doesn't alter the fact that there was no such Messianic intent on the part of Isaiah's author and there is no evidence for a pre-Christian Messianic interpretation of the passage.

show_no_mercy

I heard from other Jews that Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of Isaiah 52, which is describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. Israel is used as one singular unit to describe all Jews.

Wallener

Jewish teaching on any point is not unanimous.

JoeWallack

JW:
The above comment by Andrew needs to be qualified in my opinion. First, let's look at the entire related discussion in context:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0814.htm

"But what is his name? The disciples of R. Shilah said: Shilah is his name, as it reads [Gen. xlix. 10]: "Until Shilah will come." The disciples of R. Janai said Jinun is his name, as it reads [Ps. lxxii. 17]: "In the presence of the sun, Jinun is his name." And the disciples of R. Hanina said: Hanina is his name, as [Jer. xvi. 13]: "So that I will not grant you Hanina." (Favor.) According to others, Menachem b. Hiskia is his name as in [Sam. i. 16]: "For from me in Menachem (comforter) that should refresh my soul." And the rabbis said: The sufferer of the house of Rabbi is his name, as [Is. liii. 4]: "But only our diseases did he bear himself, and our pains he carried: while we indeed esteemed him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted."


I think the first consideration should be the translation issue. Rabbi Moshe Schulman, a Talmudic and Biblical Hebrew expert in my opinion, has written a detailed analysis of 53 regarding the Israel/Individual issue here:

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MBB9QrU...SAIAH%2053.doc

Here is his translation:

"The Messiah-what is his name?... The Rabbis say, `The leprous one by
the house of Rebbi is his name' as it is said, 'Surely he hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of
God, and afflicted.' [Isaiah 53:4]."

Literally the word is "leprous" as opposed to "sufferer" or "stricken". "Sufferer" or "stricken" could be acceptable translations in my opinion, depending on the context. It's arguable whether this issue is relevant to Andrew's point but as I'll show following, Rabbi Schulman uses "leprous" to argue against Andrew's point.

The first point I want to make is that there is no straight-forward discussion in the Talmud here regarding the issue of Israel vs. Individual. Secondly, the discussion is limited here to what the name of the Messiah will be. Third, and probably the most important point here, the arguments are all based on proof-texting. Taking one description from an excerpt and using it to support a conclusion without any other consideration. So it's unclear how much if any of this portion of the Talmud was intended to be taken seriously, as entertainment, or something in between. The fourth point is that this discussion has a Midrashic style to it which is taking an isolated description from a verse and using it to explain a single quality of a related or unrelated subject. "The Rabbi's" could not have discussed the who of 53 because there was no Isaiah Chapter 53 at the time. The Chapters were a later Christian invention. As what are now Chapters 52 and 54 clearly refer to the Exiled Israel of Isaiah's time "The Rabbi's" likely just assumed that 53 did also (surprise) and didn't see much need to debate the "who". Generally, Rabbinic commentary on 53 is midrashic, with interpretations, including "who", being based on portions of 53. As Rabbi Schulman points out in his article most Rabbinic commentaries on 53 say that the Suffering Servant is Israel, but at the same time some say that parts of 53 describe someone or something else. As near as I can tell, there is no well known Rabbi, inside or outside the Talmud, who gives a straight-forward opinion that the who of 53 is the Messiah.

Getting back to the "leprous" translation Rabbi Schulman writes:

"So who is this leper scholar? In the Talmud Yerushalmi Chagigah
chapter 2 Halacha 1 (9a in my edition): The talmud there says that a
person is not allowed to teach 'the work of the chariot' (a mystical
subject) without permission of his teacher (who has taught him.)
Rebbi Chiya said in the name of Rebbi Yehuda, 'Rebbi had an
exceptional student, who taught one chapter in the work of the
chariot, and Rebbi was not satisfied with what he taught and he was
stricken with leperacy.' This student was called the 'leper scholar'
because of that, and he is the person referred to in Sanhedrin."

Assuming Schulman is correct here than every conclusion as to the name of the Messiah is based exclusively on the matching of a word from a possibly Messianic verse in Scripture with the name of an admired Teacher by the Teacher's disciples or admirerers.

In summary then, since Andrew's excerpt from the Talmud is a quote from 53 in a discussion regarding a quality of the Messiah it is evidence of an opinion in the Talmud that what is now known as 53 referred to an individual. However, the weight of this evidence is seriously reduced due to:

1) There is no straight-forward discussion here as to the Israel vs. Individual issue.

2) This isn't an opinion as to the identity of 53 because 53 didn't exist at the time so the Talmud can only give opinions concerning portions of what is now 53.

3) This discussion was specifically limited to the Name of the Messiah.

4) The arguments are all based on proof-texting.

5) The arguments have a Midrashic style indicating the primary objective was to illustrate a quality of an admired subject rather than give a straight-forward meaning of Scripture.

In my opinion then Andrew's excerpt is better evidence of just how hard it is to find support for a clear Rabbinic opinion that 53 refers to the Messiah than it is that there was Rabbinic opinion that 53 referred to the Messiah.



Joseph

Magus55

Thats the convenient atheist answer. Any evidence that the authors of the NT intentionally stole ideas out of the OT to fabricate Christ and His crucifixion?

Toto

Luke 24:25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Is this not a smoking gun? A hint to those in the know?

Amaleq13

That's an interesting change of "inspiration" and "created" to "stole" and "fabricate".

Any evidence that the authors of the NT were recording history when they used the Hebrew Scriptures to tell their stories?

show_no_mercy

Psalms 22:17 says, "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet."
The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."